Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Vanita Shankar Agawane, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 3rd March 2009 passed by the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Corporation) and for a direction to grant family pension with retrospective effect. The petitioner's husband, Shankar Maruti Agawane, was employed as a Junior Auditor with the Corporation from 10th August 1982. He married the petitioner on 20th November 1984. The husband died on 11th April 1986 due to an accident. At the time of his death, the petitioner was staying with her father for delivery of a child. The husband had initially nominated his mother for family pension but later, by a Will dated 10th April 1986, changed the nomination in favour of the petitioner. However, this change was not communicated to the Corporation before his death. The petitioner applied for family pension in 2008, which was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the nomination was in favour of the mother and the change was not communicated. The Court framed the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension despite non-communication of the change of nomination. The Court held that nomination is only for the purpose of indicating the person to whom the amount is to be paid and does not create a vested right. The widow, being the legal heir, is entitled to family pension. The Court also held that delay in claiming pension cannot be a ground to deny the claim. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Corporation to grant family pension from the date of husband's death with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till realization.
Headnote
A) Family Pension - Entitlement of Widow - Change of Nomination - The petitioner, widow of a deceased employee, claimed family pension. The husband had initially nominated his mother but later changed the nomination in favour of the petitioner in a Will. The employer denied pension on ground that change was not communicated. The Court held that the nomination is only for the purpose of indicating the person to whom the amount is to be paid and does not create a vested right. The widow being the legal heir is entitled to family pension. The Court directed the Corporation to grant family pension from the date of husband's death with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 2-8) B) Pension Law - Delay in Claim - The petitioner applied for family pension after 22 years. The Court held that delay cannot be a ground to deny pension if the claimant is otherwise entitled. The right to pension is a continuing right and the employer cannot take advantage of its own failure to inform the claimant. (Para 7) C) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the order of the Municipal Commissioner rejecting the claim for family pension and directed the authorities to grant the same with interest. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension despite the fact that her husband had nominated his mother for family pension and the petitioner failed to communicate the change of nomination to the employer before his death?
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 3rd March 2009 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband i.e. 11th April 1986 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. The arrears to be paid within 12 weeks.
Law Points
- Family pension is a valuable right
- not a bounty
- procedural irregularities in nomination forms cannot defeat substantive right to pension
- pensionary benefits are governed by statutory rules and not by administrative instructions
- delay in claiming pension cannot be a ground to deny pension if the claimant is entitled
- pension is not a charity but a right earned by service.
